PDA

View Full Version : Does the Macbook Air have BETTER graphics than the Macbook Pro 13?




yanksrock100
Mar 13, 2011, 11:06 PM
Both Airs have Nvidia 320m graphics, and the 13 inch Macbook Pro have only Intels integrated Graphics.

Are the Airs' Graphics better?



alust2013
Mar 13, 2011, 11:12 PM
Yes, but only marginally.

Cerano
Mar 14, 2011, 12:07 AM
Yes, but only marginally.

the difference is rather big in windows gaming

Scottsdale
Mar 14, 2011, 12:15 AM
Yes, and those that own a new 13" MBP would never tell you the problems. Those that are Intel fans just want fast CPUs and often ignore problems with the IGP.

I believe that over time people will find more and more negative information about Intel's SB IGP. I think the bigger problem will be a lower voltage SB with an IGP performing at about 55% of the current Nvidia 320m. For this reason I really wonder if Apple can use the Intel IGP in the MBA.

There has been a lot made about Apple using the 320m GPU with Nvidia chipset for a long time to come. I really believe that Apple may plan to continue using the C2D and Nvidia 320m throughout 2011.

The MBA is selling well and the prior model wasn't really updated for two years the last time leading until the October 2010 update. October 2008 brought the Nvidia 9400m and the MBA got simply a CPU bump in June 2009 but not an actual update.

I believe Ivy Bridge is the real logical update cycle for the MBA as the typical MBA buyer understands the value of the MBA is there with all of the other components as the C2D certainly isn't a bottleneck. Intel does a great job of marketing making consumers believe the only way to update a computer is via a new CPU. I believe Mac fans are smarter than that as they trust Apple.

I would bet 95% of MBA buyers don't care what is in it as long as it meets their own needs and seems fast. The MBA is the fastest Mac most people have ever used so what is wrong with C2D and Nvidia's GPU?

For all of these reasons I believe the MBA will be the last Mac to migrate beyond C2D and Nvidia 320m. I believe Apple will upgrade the iMac, MacBook, Mac mini, and Mac Pro all before switching the MBA to Intel's IGP for graphics. We can even hope Apple finds a discrete AMD GPU to go in the MBA or switches to AMD for the entire package.

I really believe people are dreaming if they think the MBA is getting updated in June. And if it does get the SB Intel IGP I believe a lot of people will be disappointed with it and Apple as the IGP may very well become the main problem of the MBA, AGAIN!

foursomer
Mar 14, 2011, 12:23 AM
yes and the 13" don't deserve to be "Pro"

2IS
Mar 14, 2011, 03:34 AM
Yes, and those that own a new 13" MBP would never tell you the problems. Those that are Intel fans just want fast CPUs and often ignore problems with the IGP.

I believe that over time people will find more and more negative information about Intel's SB IGP. I think the bigger problem will be a lower voltage SB with an IGP performing at about 55% of the current Nvidia 320m. For this reason I really wonder if Apple can use the Intel IGP in the MBA.

There has been a lot made about Apple using the 320m GPU with Nvidia chipset for a long time to come. I really believe that Apple may plan to continue using the C2D and Nvidia 320m throughout 2011.

The MBA is selling well and the prior model wasn't really updated for two years the last time leading until the October 2010 update. October 2008 brought the Nvidia 9400m and the MBA got simply a CPU bump in June 2009 but not an actual update.

I believe Ivy Bridge is the real logical update cycle for the MBA as the typical MBA buyer understands the value of the MBA is there with all of the other components as the C2D certainly isn't a bottleneck. Intel does a great job of marketing making consumers believe the only way to update a computer is via a new CPU. I believe Mac fans are smarter than that as they trust Apple.

I would bet 95% of MBA buyers don't care what is in it as long as it meets their own needs and seems fast. The MBA is the fastest Mac most people have ever used so what is wrong with C2D and Nvidia's GPU?

For all of these reasons I believe the MBA will be the last Mac to migrate beyond C2D and Nvidia 320m. I believe Apple will upgrade the iMac, MacBook, Mac mini, and Mac Pro all before switching the MBA to Intel's IGP for graphics. We can even hope Apple finds a discrete AMD GPU to go in the MBA or switches to AMD for the entire package.

I really believe people are dreaming if they think the MBA is getting updated in June. And if it does get the SB Intel IGP I believe a lot of people will be disappointed with it and Apple as the IGP may very well become the main problem of the MBA, AGAIN!

Jesus, think you could have consolidated the use of "MBA" a bit there?

Azathoth
Mar 14, 2011, 05:43 AM
The MBA is selling well and the prior model wasn't really updated for two years the last time leading until the October 2010 update. October 2008 brought the Nvidia 9400m and the MBA got simply a CPU bump in June 2009 but not an actual update.


The prior model was just not selling towards the end of its life - the price/value for money was ridiculously poor. Apple realised it needed to find a better price point and found out how to do this (whilst maintaining high margins), by releasing a MBA11.

The MBA 320m has better graphics performance in games than the MBP13, for day to day stuff it's not really noticeable. The MBA CPU is significantly slower (the low power C2D architecture is << SB i5 for some tasks). Again, for many users this won't affect them, although certain specific tasks (video transcoding) can get a huge boost from the new SB chips.

Peacemaker
Mar 14, 2011, 08:57 AM
Yes, and those that own a new 13" MBP would never tell you the problems. Those that are Intel fans just want fast CPUs and often ignore problems with the IGP.

I believe that over time people will find more and more negative information about Intel's SB IGP. I think the bigger problem will be a lower voltage SB with an IGP performing at about 55% of the current Nvidia 320m. For this reason I really wonder if Apple can use the Intel IGP in the MBA.

There has been a lot made about Apple using the 320m GPU with Nvidia chipset for a long time to come. I really believe that Apple may plan to continue using the C2D and Nvidia 320m throughout 2011.

The MBA is selling well and the prior model wasn't really updated for two years the last time leading until the October 2010 update. October 2008 brought the Nvidia 9400m and the MBA got simply a CPU bump in June 2009 but not an actual update.

I believe Ivy Bridge is the real logical update cycle for the MBA as the typical MBA buyer understands the value of the MBA is there with all of the other components as the C2D certainly isn't a bottleneck. Intel does a great job of marketing making consumers believe the only way to update a computer is via a new CPU. I believe Mac fans are smarter than that as they trust Apple.

I would bet 95% of MBA buyers don't care what is in it as long as it meets their own needs and seems fast. The MBA is the fastest Mac most people have ever used so what is wrong with C2D and Nvidia's GPU?

For all of these reasons I believe the MBA will be the last Mac to migrate beyond C2D and Nvidia 320m. I believe Apple will upgrade the iMac, MacBook, Mac mini, and Mac Pro all before switching the MBA to Intel's IGP for graphics. We can even hope Apple finds a discrete AMD GPU to go in the MBA or switches to AMD for the entire package.

I really believe people are dreaming if they think the MBA is getting updated in June. And if it does get the SB Intel IGP I believe a lot of people will be disappointed with it and Apple as the IGP may very well become the main problem of the MBA, AGAIN!


C2D and Nvidia GPU combo uses more power than the SB solution. Furthermore, SB faster processor speed can also compensate the slower intel IGP. As a result, it is a win win situation. Bro, you are not running Crysis on MBA.:rolleyes: Just my 2 cents

Peacemaker

Cerano
Mar 14, 2011, 09:21 AM
The prior model was just not selling towards the end of its life - the price/value for money was ridiculously poor. Apple realised it needed to find a better price point and found out how to do this (whilst maintaining high margins), by releasing a MBA11.

The MBA 320m has better graphics performance in games than the MBP13, for day to day stuff it's not really noticeable. The MBA CPU is significantly slower (the low power C2D architecture is << SB i5 for some tasks). Again, for many users this won't affect them, although certain specific tasks (video transcoding) can get a huge boost from the new SB chips.

im actually quite disappointed by the lack of quicksync being enabled in the SB i5 MBP....

Without it the SB triumphs over the C2D based on its clock and efficiency rather than architecture

stockscalper
Mar 14, 2011, 09:57 AM
Better by a long shot. The graphics in the 13" MBP are weak by comparison, plus it has less screen resolution. Frankly, I don't see what the purpose of the 13" MBP is. If you need a smaller screen laptop, the Air beats it handily. If you need more horsepower, the 15" models offer that.

gwsat
Mar 14, 2011, 02:03 PM
Better by a long shot. The graphics in the 13" MBP are weak by comparison, plus it has less screen resolution. Frankly, I don't see what the purpose of the 13" MBP is. If you need a smaller screen laptop, the Air beats it handily. If you need more horsepower, the 15" models offer that.
The graphics and screen resolution of the new 13 inch MBP are, indeed, "weak by comparison" to those of the 13 inch MBA. I went to the Apple Store earlier today and spent about half an hour checking out the new 13 inch MBP. After having used my MBA for four and a half months, the inferiority of the 13 inch MBP's graphics was immediately apparent, at least to me. There were some other things I thought made the MBP inferior to the MBA, too, but they are beyond the scope of this thread.

Anonymous Freak
Mar 14, 2011, 02:27 PM
Most reviews have the 'complete package' as a bit of a tossup. Apps that are CPU-light and GPU-heavy tend to have a slight advantage in favor of the Air, apps that are more CPU-heavy, even if they have a healthy amount of GPU-use tend to favor the Pro.

The current Air is essentially the same beast as the previous 2010 13" Pro, internally, so Anandtech's comparison (http://www.anandtech.com/show/4205/the-macbook-pro-review-13-and-15-inch-2011-brings-sandy-bridge/8) is very revealing.

The 2011 13" Pro (Intel graphics) beats the 2010 13" Pro (nVidia graphics) on every front in OS X, although only just. The 2010/nVidia beats the 2011/Intel on every front in Windows, although only just.

And there are very few cases where it actually matters, as in those cases where the nVidia is significantly better, even the nVidia is unplayably slow. (18 fps vs. 24.)

stockscalper
Mar 14, 2011, 02:56 PM
Most reviews have the 'complete package' as a bit of a tossup. Apps that are CPU-light and GPU-heavy tend to have a slight advantage in favor of the Air, apps that are more CPU-heavy, even if they have a healthy amount of GPU-use tend to favor the Pro.

The current Air is essentially the same beast as the previous 2010 13" Pro, internally, so Anandtech's comparison (http://www.anandtech.com/show/4205/the-macbook-pro-review-13-and-15-inch-2011-brings-sandy-bridge/8) is very revealing.

The 2011 13" Pro (Intel graphics) beats the 2010 13" Pro (nVidia graphics) on every front in OS X, although only just. The 2010/nVidia beats the 2011/Intel on every front in Windows, although only just.

And there are very few cases where it actually matters, as in those cases where the nVidia is significantly better, even the nVidia is unplayably slow. (18 fps vs. 24.)

If you read the specs carefully you see that they're turning the graphics down so that the Intel chip appears to be close. Turn the resolution up and the NVidia card wipes the floor with Intel graphics as other reviews have shown.

brentsg
Mar 14, 2011, 03:08 PM
Apps that hit the GPU in OSX favor the Air by a slim margin. Apps that hit the CPU favor the MBP by a landslide.

This debate shouldn't be settled based on the GPU imo. That's a close enough race that most people won't notice the difference.

If you need CPU performance, RAM, an optical drive, or the future expansion that Thunderbolt brings, then it's a no brainer decision for the MBP. If you need the additional screen real estate or extreme portability then it's a slam dunk for the Air.

2IS
Mar 14, 2011, 07:20 PM
Apps that hit the GPU in OSX favor the Air by a slim margin. Apps that hit the CPU favor the MBP by a landslide.

This debate shouldn't be settled based on the GPU imo. That's a close enough race that most people won't notice the difference.

If you need CPU performance, RAM, an optical drive, or the future expansion that Thunderbolt brings, then it's a no brainer decision for the MBP. If you need the additional screen real estate or extreme portability then it's a slam dunk for the Air.

100% agree.

FX4568
Mar 14, 2011, 07:22 PM
Yes, and those that own a new 13" MBP would never tell you the problems. Those that are Intel fans just want fast CPUs and often ignore problems with the IGP.

I believe that over time people will find more and more negative information about Intel's SB IGP. I think the bigger problem will be a lower voltage SB with an IGP performing at about 55% of the current Nvidia 320m. For this reason I really wonder if Apple can use the Intel IGP in the MBA.

There has been a lot made about Apple using the 320m GPU with Nvidia chipset for a long time to come. I really believe that Apple may plan to continue using the C2D and Nvidia 320m throughout 2011.

The MBA is selling well and the prior model wasn't really updated for two years the last time leading until the October 2010 update. October 2008 brought the Nvidia 9400m and the MBA got simply a CPU bump in June 2009 but not an actual update.

I believe Ivy Bridge is the real logical update cycle for the MBA as the typical MBA buyer understands the value of the MBA is there with all of the other components as the C2D certainly isn't a bottleneck. Intel does a great job of marketing making consumers believe the only way to update a computer is via a new CPU. I believe Mac fans are smarter than that as they trust Apple.

I would bet 95% of MBA buyers don't care what is in it as long as it meets their own needs and seems fast. The MBA is the fastest Mac most people have ever used so what is wrong with C2D and Nvidia's GPU?

For all of these reasons I believe the MBA will be the last Mac to migrate beyond C2D and Nvidia 320m. I believe Apple will upgrade the iMac, MacBook, Mac mini, and Mac Pro all before switching the MBA to Intel's IGP for graphics. We can even hope Apple finds a discrete AMD GPU to go in the MBA or switches to AMD for the entire package.

I really believe people are dreaming if they think the MBA is getting updated in June. And if it does get the SB Intel IGP I believe a lot of people will be disappointed with it and Apple as the IGP may very well become the main problem of the MBA, AGAIN!

I wouldnt mind seeing C2D in the forthcoming MBAs, but seriously. Do you think Apple has stacked up that many C2Ds? If they sold 1.1 million macbook airs in 5 months, they will probably sell out by june. Unless Stevie bought like a mountain of C2D chips, apple will be forced to switch to SB.

namtaB
Mar 14, 2011, 07:43 PM
I just took a close look at the MBA and MBP side by side at best buy and there's no discernible difference in graphics quality to me. That's not to say that one isn't better than the other, but at the level of MBA 13 v. MBP 13 I didn't see any difference. Now, the MBP 17" has a drop dead incredible display and blows everything else out of the water.

Anonymous Freak
Mar 14, 2011, 07:56 PM
If you read the specs carefully you see that they're turning the graphics down so that the Intel chip appears to be close. Turn the resolution up and the NVidia card wipes the floor with Intel graphics as other reviews have shown.

When you turn the quality up enough that the nVidia card "wipes the floor", even the nVidia card is unplayable. A couple examples on other sites have the difference at higher quality settings with the nVidia card getting up to 2x the frame rate. Although the frame rates are on the order of 10 vs. 20 fps or even 8 vs 19 fps. Yes, it's 2x! But it's still unplayable.

In most reviews, there are very limited scenarios where the nVidia is "just barely playable" at a given setting while the Intel is unplayable. In most of the situations where a game is "just barely playable", the settings are low enough that the two are even, or the Intel very slightly ahead.

gwsat
Mar 14, 2011, 09:05 PM
Apps that hit the GPU in OSX favor the Air by a slim margin. Apps that hit the CPU favor the MBP by a landslide.

This debate shouldn't be settled based on the GPU imo. That's a close enough race that most people won't notice the difference.

If you need CPU performance, RAM, an optical drive, or the future expansion that Thunderbolt brings, then it's a no brainer decision for the MBP. If you need the additional screen real estate or extreme portability then it's a slam dunk for the Air.

100% agree.
I agree, too. I love my 13 inch MBA because of its power coupled with incredible thinness and lightness. But if thinness and lightness were not as important to me as they are, I would get a 13 inch MBP. The MBP does, indeed, have graphics that are inferior to the MBA's but it offers far more power, along with both Firewire 800 and Thunderbolt ports. Also the MBP's RAM and hard drive are user upgradeable. Best of all, the entry level 13 inch MBA costs only two-thirds as much as a comparably equipped 13 inch MBA.

alan111
Mar 14, 2011, 09:18 PM
Good info in this thread

iDisk
Mar 14, 2011, 09:29 PM
Both Airs have Nvidia 320m graphics, and the 13 inch Macbook Pro have only Intels integrated Graphics.

Are the Airs' Graphics better?

The 13" Pro is a slap in the face from Apple. 13"Pro users will not agree on that, how could they?

The 13" Pro has a lower res screen then the 11" Air, The graphics suck on the 13" Pro too..

I have a ultimate Air, you should buy one too!!

Only "pro" notebook Apple makes is the 15" inch high end model and 17" model... the low end 15" with its 256VRAM is a slap in the face, apple should have 512mb and 1GB not 256mb and 1GB ... The pro's are overpriced. The hi-res screen should be standard.

Bottom line is GET A AIR. Ultimate

Anonymous Freak
Mar 15, 2011, 01:29 AM
The 13" Pro is a slap in the face from Apple. 13"Pro users will not agree on that, how could they?

The 13" Pro has a lower res screen then the 11" Air, The graphics suck on the 13" Pro too..

And I fully agree here. The fact that the 13" Pro still has the 1280x screen while the 13" Air got a 1440x screen is insane that they call it "Pro".

And while the Intel graphics may be roughly equal to the 320M in the Air, it is still disgraceful to call "Pro".

The 13" Pro really should be called just "MacBook" (maybe without FireWire, since Apple has abandoned that on the lower-end MBs,) but if they're going to call it "Pro", they should at *LEAST* have a higher res screen (and matte) available as an option for people who want a smaller-than-15-but-still-"Pro" computer.

fyrefly
Mar 15, 2011, 01:30 AM
The 13" Pro is a slap in the face from Apple. 13"Pro users will not agree on that, how could they?

The 13" Pro has a lower res screen then the 11" Air, The graphics suck on the 13" Pro too..

I agree that the 13" 2011 Pro Screen Rez should have at least been BTO-able to 1440x900, like the 13" air. Pretty inexcusable.

But the 11" air has a 16x9 rez vs the 16x10 res of the 13" Pro. Different beasts, and while pushing pixels they're pretty much a wash:

1366x768 = 1,049,088 pixels

1280x800 = 1,024,000 pixels

That's only 25,000 pixels less. 1/2 the pixels of the new iPod Nano screen. So it's less, but not *that* much less. And some people prefer the 16x10 screens vs. the 16x9 for working (and less vertical scrolling all the time! ;) ).

And Regarding Graphics, we've already seen that in OSX, the difference between the 320m and the HD 3000 is negligible (the HD 3000 is probably 5-10% less than the 320m). But that is more than made up for by the 200% processor gain from C2D.

Bottom line is GET A AIR. Ultimate

I know. I did, twice in 2008, and once in late 2010. ;) But your advice should have an asterisk after it... GET AN (see how I fixed that for ya? ;) ) AIR*

*unless you need any of the following: CPU Power, DVD-RW, Ethernet, Firewire, multithreading, or Thunderbolt.

The 13" Pro really should be called just "MacBook" (maybe without FireWire, since Apple has abandoned that on the lower-end MBs,) but if they're going to call it "Pro", they should at *LEAST* have a higher res screen (and matte) available as an option for people who want a smaller-than-15-but-still-"Pro" computer.

I agree heavily on the Matte, High-Res screen. If the 13" 2011 had a Matte 1400x900 screen, I'd be typing on one right now!

2IS
Mar 15, 2011, 02:02 AM
I agree that the 13" 2011 Pro Screen Rez should have at least been BTO-able to 1440x900, like the 13" air. Pretty inexcusable.

But the 11" air has a 16x9 rez vs the 16x10 res of the 13" Pro. Different beasts, and while pushing pixels they're pretty much a wash:

1366x768 = 1,049,088 pixels

1280x800 = 1,024,000 pixels

That's only 25,000 pixels less. 1/2 the pixels of the new iPod Nano screen. So it's less, but not *that* much less. And some people prefer the 16x10 screens vs. the 16x9 for working (and less vertical scrolling all the time! ;) ).


Right, but you're forgetting that the pixels on the mbp are spread over 13.3" vs 11.6" So not only does it have fewer pixels, it has to spread them out further.

stockscalper
Mar 15, 2011, 08:50 AM
And I fully agree here. The fact that the 13" Pro still has the 1280x screen while the 13" Air got a 1440x screen is insane that they call it "Pro".

And while the Intel graphics may be roughly equal to the 320M in the Air, it is still disgraceful to call "Pro".

The 13" Pro really should be called just "MacBook" (maybe without FireWire, since Apple has abandoned that on the lower-end MBs,) but if they're going to call it "Pro", they should at *LEAST* have a higher res screen (and matte) available as an option for people who want a smaller-than-15-but-still-"Pro" computer.

They are not roughly equal, they are vastly subpar. What the graphics in the Air are roughly equal to is the low end 15" MBP as born out by numerous tests.

matelot
Mar 15, 2011, 10:44 AM
Jesus, think you could have consolidated the use of "MBA" a bit there?


what ?!

fyrefly
Mar 15, 2011, 12:33 PM
They are not roughly equal, they are vastly subpar. What the graphics in the Air are roughly equal to is the low end 15" MBP as born out by numerous tests.

What are you talking about? Other than in Windows 7 gaming benchmarks, the HD 3000 is equal to 5-10% less than the 320m. That's not "vastly subpar". That is "roughly equal".

pnyx
Mar 15, 2011, 03:42 PM
*unless you need any of the following: DVD-RW, Ethernet, Firewire, or Thunderbolt.


external, external, edge case and nobody needs the last one until it actually has peripherals connecting to it.

fyrefly
Mar 15, 2011, 03:56 PM
external, external, edge case and nobody needs the last one.

Hah, funny. :D

Don't get me wrong, I have an Air (have had 3, actually, since Jan 08 when they came out) but by the time you've loaded up your bag with a MBA, Ethernet Dongle, External Superdrive, you're pretty close to the weight of the 13" MBP.

And I've tried pushing a lot of friends towards an Air, but they use their MacBook/Pros as All-In-Ones, watching movies (DVDs) and TV (again DVDs) on them rather than on a traditional TV. Some of my friends are also often on the train a lot and want an all in one w/o having to haul out and awkwardly connect a USB superdrive.

Hence my caveat that the advice "GET A (sic) AIR" isn't always the best.

Scottsdale
Mar 15, 2011, 11:28 PM
Hah, funny. :D

Don't get me wrong, I have an Air (have had 3, actually, since Jan 08 when they came out) but by the time you've loaded up your bag with a MBA, Ethernet Dongle, External Superdrive, you're pretty close to the weight of the 13" MBP.

And I've tried pushing a lot of friends towards an Air, but they use their MacBook/Pros as All-In-Ones, watching movies (DVDs) and TV (again DVDs) on them rather than on a traditional TV. Some of my friends are also often on the train a lot and want an all in one w/o having to haul out and awkwardly connect a USB superdrive.

Hence my caveat that the advice "GET A (sic) AIR" isn't always the best.

The thing you're missing is the average MBA owner doesn't stuff his or her bag with Ethernet dongle or USB SuperDrive. The world is moving beyond cables and optical disks, and that is what Steve Jobs means when he said next generation of MacBooks and next generation of Mac users.

If you want to connect via Ethernet and spin your disks go have fun with your MacBook. Even my desktop Macs connect via WiFi... and I don't think the average MacBook Air user gives a darn about all of the extras.

Think outside the box of the 1990s!

Psilocybin
Mar 15, 2011, 11:33 PM
The thing you're missing is the average MBA owner doesn't stuff his or her bag with Ethernet dongle or USB SuperDrive. The world is moving beyond cables and optical disks, and that is what Steve Jobs means when he said next generation of MacBooks and next generation of Mac users.

If you want to connect via Ethernet and spin your disks go have fun with your MacBook. Even my desktop Macs connect via WiFi... and I don't think the average MacBook Air user gives a darn about all of the extras.

Think outside the box of the 1990s!


+1 well put

Cheffy Dave
Mar 16, 2011, 12:51 AM
The thing you're missing is the average MBA owner doesn't stuff his or her bag with Ethernet dongle or USB SuperDrive. The world is moving beyond cables and optical disks, and that is what Steve Jobs means when he said next generation of MacBooks and next generation of Mac users.

If you want to connect via Ethernet and spin your disks go have fun with your MacBook. Even my desktop Macs connect via WiFi... and I don't think the average MacBook Air user gives a darn about all of the extras.

Think outside the box of the 1990s!

I agree SD, I have so gone minimalist. The iPad taught me that:eek: I think the next MBP's will be w/o optical drive, much thinner, and have SSD drives. If you need the optical drive, get the USB version.:eek:
The recent hands on at the Apple Store in Tampa was eye opening for me! The speed of the SSD is amazing. the app icons bouncing in the MBP while the HDD spins up is gone in the MBA. The MBA has come of age. Amazingly well done Apple;)

Jayomat
Mar 16, 2011, 01:46 AM
The 13" Pro is a slap in the face from Apple. 13"Pro users will not agree on that, how could they?

The 13" Pro has a lower res screen then the 11" Air, The graphics suck on the 13" Pro too..

I have a ultimate Air, you should buy one too!!

Only "pro" notebook Apple makes is the 15" inch high end model and 17" model... the low end 15" with its 256VRAM is a slap in the face, apple should have 512mb and 1GB not 256mb and 1GB ... The pro's are overpriced. The hi-res screen should be standard.

Bottom line is don't get a Apple notebook if you don't rely on a specific mac-application

fixed it ;-)

gwsat
Mar 16, 2011, 08:49 AM
The thing you're missing is the average MBA owner doesn't stuff his or her bag with Ethernet dongle or USB SuperDrive. The world is moving beyond cables and optical disks, and that is what Steve Jobs means when he said next generation of MacBooks and next generation of Mac users.

If you want to connect via Ethernet and spin your disks go have fun with your MacBook. Even my desktop Macs connect via WiFi... and I don't think the average MacBook Air user gives a darn about all of the extras.

Think outside the box of the 1990s!
+1 well put
Well put, indeed. When I travel I take only my MBA and its A/C adapter in my computer bag. The whole thing, bag and all, weighs no more than a 13 inch MBP weighs all by itself.

As for movies, I long ago converted most of my DVD library to MP4 files and stored them on disc. Thus, when I want to watch movies on my MBA, I don't need an optical drive. Instead, I just copy the converted movies I want to watch to the MBA. I still use my old MBP to rip discs, so I don't even own a Superdrive for the MBA.

SammySlim
Mar 16, 2011, 10:14 AM
Great thread, actually. 2 things:

My MBA 11 drives my Apple 27 Cinema display at its native resolution -- don't know how the new MBP 13 would do with that display and would be curious to hear from other users who connect the two - my MBA drives the big 27 like a champ. I use the big display at home and take the MBA on the road all the time (fly over 100k miles/year) so I take it in minimalist mode. Just my Overdrive and my MBA.

Second, if you think the SSDs are quick now, wait until Lion which will support the TRIM command. I expect that Apple is waiting until Lion is out to push SSDs across the whole MBP (and iMac) lines as a result. When that happens, things will heat up. Combine TRIM support with Ivy Bridge graphics next year across the Apple lineup and we'll have some serious machines out there guys.

I agree with other posters - if you need the onboard drive and connectivity, got MBP 13. If you need the portability and "instant on," go MBA. Benchmarks aren't enough to tip one way or the other IMO.

Cheers

KPOM
Mar 16, 2011, 01:12 PM
Second, if you think the SSDs are quick now, wait until Lion which will support the TRIM command. I expect that Apple is waiting until Lion is out to push SSDs across the whole MBP (and iMac) lines as a result. When that happens, things will heat up. Combine TRIM support with Ivy Bridge graphics next year across the Apple lineup and we'll have some serious machines out there guys.

TRIM support is more about maintaining SSD performance rather than improving initial performance. That said, there are developments that are making SSDs even faster. The latest MacBook Pros support the new SATA standard of 6Gb/s (twice as fast as the previous standard). Plus, controllers are getting better and better.

LegendKillerUK
Mar 16, 2011, 01:55 PM
I agree that the 13" 2011 Pro Screen Rez should have at least been BTO-able to 1440x900, like the 13" air. Pretty inexcusable.

But the 11" air has a 16x9 rez vs the 16x10 res of the 13" Pro. Different beasts, and while pushing pixels they're pretty much a wash:

1366x768 = 1,049,088 pixels

1280x800 = 1,024,000 pixels

That's only 25,000 pixels less. 1/2 the pixels of the new iPod Nano screen. So it's less, but not *that* much less. And some people prefer the 16x10 screens vs. the 16x9 for working (and less vertical scrolling all the time! ;) ).


One reason I opted for the Pro was the 16:10 screen. We get a lot of laptops in work that are 16:9 and it just doesn't look right.

The bigger reason was that as a student I live both at home and at uni during the week, so I only have one computer. A small SSD won't do it for me and I'd like as much power in a portable laptop as possible. :)

fyrefly
Mar 16, 2011, 03:22 PM
The thing you're missing is the average MBA owner doesn't stuff his or her bag with Ethernet dongle or USB SuperDrive. The world is moving beyond cables and optical disks, and that is what Steve Jobs means when he said next generation of MacBooks and next generation of Mac users.

If you want to connect via Ethernet and spin your disks go have fun with your MacBook. Even my desktop Macs connect via WiFi... and I don't think the average MacBook Air user gives a darn about all of the extras.

Think outside the box of the 1990s!

I think you missed my point. I said the get an air advice makes sense as long as you don't need (frequent) access to Ethernet, DVD-RW, or Firewire. And the guy responded with what amounted to "use external".

My response was then "yeah, but if you're getting an air for lightweight, ease of travel, then loading up a bag with a bunch of external stuff is gonna make it weigh as much as the MBP!

Of course the Average MBA user doesn't need to load up a bag with an external DVD-RW, Ethernet dongle, etc... lord knows I sure don't/haven't since 2008! My point was that if someone *did* do that every day, and they were actually using both frequently, I'd suggest that the MBA was the wrong machine for them.

Some people *need* the functionality of optical discs and ethernet (video professionals, pro photographers, etc...). For them, unless they can do all of their burning and transferring at night, or EOD back at the home base, the Air may not be the machine for them.

And regarding Ethernet, congrats to you for only using Wifi, but 802.11n still doesn't come close to replicating the speed of Gigabit Ethernet. My iMac and HTPC Mac Mini are both hooked up to Ethernet at home 'cause it makes transferring larger files (1GB+) between them a breeze. Something that would take 5-10mins with 802.11n takes ~1-2Min.

GekkePrutser
Mar 16, 2011, 04:37 PM
And regarding Ethernet, congrats to you for only using Wifi, but 802.11n still doesn't come close to replicating the speed of Gigabit Ethernet. My iMac and HTPC Mac Mini are both hooked up to Ethernet at home 'cause it makes transferring larger files (1GB+) between them a breeze. Something that would take 5-10mins with 802.11n takes ~1-2Min.

Totally true however unfortunately the Air adaptor doesn't have gigabit ethernet :( 10/100 only.

Hopefully the next generation will offer Thunderbolt, and a suitable gigabit adapter.

SammySlim
Mar 16, 2011, 04:51 PM
Agreed re TRIM support - I was thinking more about long-term performance rather than initial performance. And the transfer rates will also help a great deal, as you note.

Cheers

2IS
Mar 17, 2011, 09:51 AM
Totally true however unfortunately the Air adaptor doesn't have gigabit ethernet :( 10/100 only.

Hopefully the next generation will offer Thunderbolt, and a suitable gigabit adapter.

In practice, a 100Mb ethernet is still quite a bit faster than even a wireless n connection. That said, it only really makes a difference for large file transfers. Basic Internet browsing isn't going to see much, if any improvement.

8281
Mar 17, 2011, 11:33 AM
Having owned both the 2011 MBP 13" and the base MBA, I can say that I don't notice any difference in graphics power. Albeit, I'm not a heavy gamer, and I only do light work on Photoshop/InDesign, but in everyday use, whatever differences exists, are, for me at least, negligible.

I actually returned the Air about five days after I purchased it for two reasons. Scrolling constantly became irritating, and I couldn't help feeling that I had been ripped off (don't crucify me). I have never regretted purchasing any Apple product (I've had a Macbook, Mini, and the new Pro), but I kept thinking that I had just spent $1,000 on a 1.4 ghz 5-year-old processor, 2 gigs of ram, and 64 GB SSD. I'm not a spec chaser, I just feel that if I'm dropping $1,000 on a new machine, I want a new machine (plus, I can't afford to buy a "home base" computer to sit at home). Just my two cents, don't want to ruffle anyone's feathers (although I'm sure I just did).

Anyway, when I upgrade the admittedly slow HDD in my MBP with an SSD, it'll be lightening fast.

dotheDVDeed
Mar 17, 2011, 11:35 AM
Hopefully the next generation will offer Thunderbolt, and a suitable gigabit adapter.

Assuming Apple will run out of C2D chips this year, what do others think of the possibility of this? I thought some described the Thunderbolt chip as being quite large, would it be able to be squeezed into MBA's thin case?

I was hoping for greater than USB2 data transfer rates (assuming someone makes TB peripherals).

TIM

GekkePrutser
Mar 17, 2011, 11:40 AM
Assuming Apple will run out of C2D chips this year, what do others think of the possibility of this? I thought some described the Thunderbolt chip as being quite large, would it be able to be squeezed into MBA's thin case?

I think it's possible, especially with the 13". The chip isn't that big, and they might make one with a smaller package specially for the ultramobile market. Also, since the Sandy Bridge GPU is integrated in the CPU the chipset might be a bit smaller than the nVidia offering.

I think part of the problem Apple had fitting a discrete GPU for example was that it needs a lot of cooling as well as space. The thunderbolt chip just needs space (I'm sure it doesn't get as hot as a GPU) and can be tucked away somewhere without airflow.

So I'm thinking yes but maybe not this year.

brentsg
Mar 17, 2011, 11:50 AM
Some people *need* the functionality of optical discs and ethernet (video professionals, pro photographers, etc...). For them, unless they can do all of their burning and transferring at night, or EOD back at the home base, the Air may not be the machine for them.

I'm in the camp that absolutely needs ethernet, even though rarely. Some customer sites that I visit won't allow me to do critical work via wireless. That steered me toward the MBP, but I want small and portable.. so that means 13" and then I'm up against the lost screen real estate of the MBP.

Admittedly this has had me going in circles lately. I really want to lose the bulk of my 15, as I know I'll have a smaller unit with me more often.

fyrefly
Mar 17, 2011, 03:54 PM
I'm in the camp that absolutely needs ethernet, even though rarely. Some customer sites that I visit won't allow me to do critical work via wireless. That steered me toward the MBP, but I want small and portable.. so that means 13" and then I'm up against the lost screen real estate of the MBP.

Admittedly this has had me going in circles lately. I really want to lose the bulk of my 15, as I know I'll have a smaller unit with me more often.

Yeah, if there's been one clear miss in the MacBook releases of the last year or so it's not putting the 1440x900 res in the 13" MBP (at least as a BTO). Not sure what prompted that (probably cost and/or availability of the 1440x900 screens).

Hopefully Apple includes the 1440x900 sooner rather than later, but my guess is that unless they drop in a BTO (a la the change to allow Anti-Glare BTO in the 15" MBP Unis) mid-stream, we'll probably be waiting till the 2012 Ivy Bridge MBPs before a possible Screen Res jump. :S